On Tuesday 14 June 2011 08:34:00 Tejun Heo wrote:
> Yeap, using a separate workqueue doesn't do anything for latency
> unless WQ_HIGHPRI and/or WQ_CPU_INTENSIVE is used; however, _please_
> stay away from it unless absolutely sure it's necessary (ie. unless
> you can pin point to where latency is coming from - even in that case,
> the thing which induces the latency probably is the one which should
> be fixed).
The latency in most cases comes from the fact, that we are running an embedded
system. Number of peripherals are connected via I2C, these drivers are using
workqueues to communicate with the IC.
Since only one device can communicate through I2C at the time. This is
basically the source of the latency. It does not really matter, if the devices
are on the same I2C bus or not, it is enough if two work belonging to device,
which happens to be on the same I2C bus, and the first work in the queue takes
long time to complete (reading back bigger chunk of info, configuring, etc).
Even if we could schedule the second work on the other CPU, it will be put
waiting till the I2C bus is free, so both CPU core has work assigned, the
first is keeping the I2C bus, the other waits for the I2C bus, and the third
is waiting to be scheduled (which will be happening, when the first work
finished).
IMHO the tactile feedback (vibra) should have an excuse to have separate WQ to
avoid latency spikes.
I agree, that most cases we can use the global wq.
> CMWQ is pretty good at keeping latency low unless something is
> consuming large amount of CPU cycles and those work items are marked
> WQ_CPU_INTENSIVE, not the other way around and WQ_HIGHPRI is for
> things like MCE error reporting.
So this is not really about CPU utilization, it is due to the wide variety of
peripherals connected to an embedded system.
--
Péter